|
>Tony-Reply2: He could have said The eternal word was in the >beginning with God. The point is, what he said is >ambiguous, and to argue from what is stated is entirely >circular.
Response: That won't work because we are eternal, our souls go on forever, some to heaven and others to hell, but we have been created, so again how could he have said it? > >Tony-Reply2: The action taking place is his entering the >state of being. Obviously there cannot be a change, because >it is the first line of a sentence, however, this does not >rule out the use here. I don't believe Wallace took into >consideration the use of such in the first verse, but there >is no grammatical reason that it could not occur in such a >place.
Response: Then you need to refute Wallace, and show evidence of why this is *better* not just possible than the normal use of the imperfect. John is not saying that Jesus Christ began, he would have used ginomai or some form of it (probably an incpetive aorist, or even a normal aorist), if that is what he was trying to communicate. And if you want to say that he did that in verse 4, then he is inconsistant, why? because he is using hen in one sentence and genomai in another sentence and using different tenses for both. It does not add up.
You are forcing something into scripture, you are making it way to compicated.
>Tony-Reply2: This is just it though. If you say something >is "since the beginning" it is not considered to be before >the beginning, but only from the time of the beginning. For >example, if I say, "I've been eating since the game >started", the obvious understanding of such an expression is >that when the game started, I started eating and I've >continued doing such up until that time.
Response: Have you ever considered that JOhn did not define where the beginning is on purpose? So that in the mind of the audience when they saw the imperfect and an underfined beginnign, the would say the Logos was eternal. Instead of jumping to verse 4, and then trying to figure out why John used differetn tenses to communicate the same idea? > >Tony-Reply2: See prior comments.
Response: All you said was Wallace did not consider it, that is not a good answer, explain why the inceptive is better than the normal rendering, by looking at JOhn 1:1. Are you able to do that? > >Tony-Reply2: I never said someone must agree with every >scholar. Scholars disagree with eachother, so that is >impossible. I simply cannot find a good contextual reason to >consider such an option. I see nothing more than theology >trying to take away from the obvious, especially in light of >the statistical evidence.
Response: Good contextual reason is that it does not make sense. That should be enough reason for you. But you are holding on dearly to your theology, I understand. > > >Tony-Reply2: "hacam" is not a noun, so that doesn't work.
Response: That is a good point. Here is something interesting though, if Wisdom is indeed a male as you say, then why in Chapter 9, does he prepare food, mix wine, set tables, and send out maidens, that sounds like a women to me.
And besides it really does not matter if it is male or female, but rather can you prove that wisdom in Proverbs 8 is Christ.
>Tony-Reply2: That is pretty much exactly what Prov 8:30 >says. "I was beside him, a craftsman". Remember, the Hebrew >text says ah-MON not Ke-ah-MON which would be translated >"as a craftsman"
Response: But the ke is left out quite frequently in Hebrew. So we both know that wisdom really is not an architect, so wisdom has to be compared to one. >>Tony-Reply2: Wisdom seems to be saying what he is with God, >that is, Wisdom is an archtect beside God.
Response: Tony wisdom really is not an architech, unless you think that wisdom had a hard hat on and pulled out the blueprints >Tony-Reply2: Well, either one might be a bit odd, since I >am white. Having said that, I understand the >contextual issues you are talking about, however, it does >not negate my point. Wisdom is wisdom, and wisdom leads us >down different paths, but Christ's being the wisdom of God >is not in some limited sense, he is it in the fullest sense, >because he has it in the fullest sense (Col 2:3). As such, >he does lead us to salvation, but he is not limited to that. > This is my point.
Response: Oh my bad I did not know you were white. You say wisdom is wisdom, but you also said that Christ is not the attribute wisdom, therefore wisdom is not wisdom, if it is then wisdom the attribute is created, and God was once wisdom less. Therefore you must maintain that when wisdom is personified it is Christ, however, Paul is not personifying wisdom, therefore he is not using wisdom in the same sense taht Solomon is. Therefore, unless you can give contextual evidence, for linking 1 Cor to Proverbs 8, nothing more than theology drives this conclusion. >
>Tony-Reply2: See what I just wrote..
Response: I responded, and still wait for some exegesis. > >Tony-Reply2: Better study up on a genitive of relationship >again, because this is not it. If it said something like, >Ruben, son of... That would be a genitive of relationship. >This one is identifying him as the first one of his >children. In fact, it is identical to the construction of >Rev 3:14. The issue is specifically with ARCH TEKNWN.
Response: If it is identical to the structure in Rev 3, then it would be a subjective genitive not a partive. > >Tony-Reply2: Not even close. ARCH TEKNWN is not a genitive >of relationship at all.
Response: Well, how do you figure, if it is the sam as above andd the same as Rev 3, then it is subjective.
>>Tony-Reply2: AUTOU shows possession, but ARCH GENHMATWN is >not possessive at all, it is partitive.
Response: Let me see that one again, I erased the verse. > >>> >Tony-Reply2: Months is a plural, a singular month belongs >to the group of the plural. If I say, "the red tree is the >prettiest of the trees," that is partitive, with the >prettiest one being part of the group of trees. The Hebrew >does not agree with you either, for it uses rosh.
Response: But the genitive starts with pretty, not the red tree, in the partitive the first part of the genitive would have to fit into the rest, not some other part of the clause. > >Tony-Reply2: No, because without wisdom, you cannot fear >the Lord. That is the point. By fearing him, you display >the first parts of wisdom. The Hebrew uses Reshit, which I >don't believe allows for your position either.
Response: But beginning would have to be part of something for it to be partitive. And I don;t think you can divide wisdom up into parts. >Tony-Reply3: Your position doesn't make sense at all. The >events that were just described were only the initial ones >of the group of birth pangs.
Response: Birth pains begins when you see... That is why I said it is subjective. >>Tony-Reply2: It is the same sentence! Remember, verses are >imaginary.
Response: But it has to be found in the genitive itself, not outside of it. Otherwise you are discussing something else. > >>Tony-Reply2: Sorry for them respecting the wishes of dead >people! Who translated it has nothing to do with the >quality of the translation.
Response: We'd like to know if the peole were qualified, much like a doctor who does not show his credintials. > >Tony-Reply2: Ahh, but that is just my point! See, if I >wanted to argue that David was Jehovah, I'd go right here to >do it. Doesn't mean he is. Same for your position on John >20:28. You assume Jesus is God, so you argue from John >20:28. If I assume David is Jehovah, I'd argue from 1 Sam >20:12. If I don't assume either, and take the verses for >what is obviously transpiring, I don't come to either >conclusion.
Response: Actually, there is a texual issue there, the Syriac versions tells us that it should be *the Lord God of Israel as my witness*. And this is the route that most translations take, so since we have that background, what Thomas is saying is different than what Johnathan is saying. Futhermore, he says "my God and my Lord." In the Hebrew that is not a genitive expression. > >Tony-Reply2: You again limit God's ability.
Response: Non response, either your monotheist or henotheist which is it? >Tony-Reply2: I'm Biblical. And even if Christ was not a >copy, he still represents God's BEING.. That means he is not >that being, which flies in the face of Trinitarianims.
Response: He would not be an exacte representation of his being. Nothing is flyin in our face. >>Tony-Reply2: When you supply a bunch of opinion without >grammatical or scriptural basis, there is nothing to reply >to. \
Response: The scriputural basis is that there is only one God, you cannot have two plan and simple, you admitted those other so called gods do not have the excate being so the are not in the same catagory, so does the bible teach monotheism or henotheism? Answer the question.
>>Tony-Reply2: Say something that is more than opinion and >I'll respond.
Response: Sure, there is only one God. And it does not teach henotheism.
------------ En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos
|